Talk:F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Game Engine[edit]

Does anyone know what engine the F.E.A.R. sequel will be using? Will it use the same engine as the original F.E.A.R.? Or some new version of the Jupitor Engine? IGN got a 15 minute video of the sequel, which I cited in the article itself and added, but did not mention anything about the game engine or graphics, which I find very odd. 72.49.194.69 21:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Joshua[reply]

Are you guys sure it's using Lithtech: Jupiter EX (the very same engine as the first game)? No citation or source is stated. 72.49.194.69 05:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Joshua[reply]

I don't think it's been disclosed yet, since it's still early. I would imagine it would use a further-enhanced version of the Lithtech engine from Jupiter EX. -Deuxsonic 09:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is I hope they manage to use a mix lighting style of real-time and lightmapping. FEAR's realtime lighting is gorgeous, but limiting. The engine still supports lightmapping (since the way-back-when original Jupiter ONLY had lightmaps and static vertex), and if they gave the processor a radiosity simulator, then lightmapping would be great for filling out the dark areas without resorting to ambient light. If they want to make the mood more elaborate, a lightmap/dynamic hybrid is the way to go.

TimeGate Expansions[edit]

Please stop adding Extraction Point. Monolith does not view it as having ever happened. It's in the first magazine article about the game; I don't have it with me right now, but when I get home I'll cite it for you all. Enfestid (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Official word that the two F.E.A.R expansion packs, Extraction Point and Peresus Mandate are viewed as never happened.

http://www.projectorigingame.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5928&postcount=7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.86.223 (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the citation to the main text. However, it must be said that a citation from a public forum is not really ideal; it would be better to find an official statement from Monolith, and/or something officially stated in a notable trade Web site, like Gamespot. Xihr (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never happened seems like an extreme term. I'd also want to see a solid citation. Xe7al (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's certainly true that Monolith does not consider the plot that has taken place in the two expansion packs to be canonical, and so has stated they will just ignore them. The citation is true; it's just not a particularly notable one. I'll dig around for a better one. Xihr (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be good to have them on the same page for the character lists, yet make it clear there are two different continuities? Theodorel (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the problem with that is that the continuity for the expansion packs isn't much of one; it's a dead end and there isn't much to say except essentially all the main characters are gratuitously killed off, or that the new characters introduced are unceremoniously killed. (Except for Mapes, who inexplicably survives, but obviously it's just intended for comic effect.) Xihr (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that it really doesn't make a difference because it's a different story basically. You can assume that the past expansions are being ignored because they have no effect on what happens in the next story. That is unless they throw something in about the Nightcrawlers capturing that DNA sample. That's probably the only thing I can see coming out of the expansions. Xe7al (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heres a site talking about this issue: http://www.gamepro.com.au/index.php/id;644716573;fp;32768;fpid;1242214376--Lakecityransom (talk) 10:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FEAR 2[edit]

It was announced unofficially in the UK PC gamer of this month (jan 08) that Vivendi was working on a sequel to FEAR, called FEAR 2, that they will be unveiling after Project Origin is released. i propose that the FEAR 2 re-direct be removed, because this will almost certainly cause confusion and difficulties when FEAR 2 is officially announced. 3rdTriangle (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E3 Demo[edit]

there's a 18 minute video on youtube of a demo that was shown at E3, in 2007. there's alot of content in there, which we could use to update the main page? 3rdTriangle (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

seeing as no-one has objected, i've added the information under a new section 3rdTriangle (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Release date[edit]

Anyone know when the release date is? I know their are some trailers for it, meaning it is coming soon (unless it goes they way of GTA 4 and releases the game a year after the trailer comes out) if anyone know anything about this, please post it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Not G. Ivingname (talk • contribs) 04:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's been announced yet. Xihr (talk) 04:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I saw a October 28, 2008 US release date on Amazon.com website. Don't know if it is official, but setting the release date of a game with Project Origin's background so close to Halloween seems more than coincidental... Berserker79 (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Official website says Fall 2008 at the bottom. Dunno how long it's been since it's been updated though. I'm going to change it to Fall 2008. If anyone can show me a different date, please do. Delta (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's old data. A delay was just announced, pushing it back to Q1 2009.  Xihr  04:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Saw it on IGN right after I changed it. Meant to rv myself....uhm, oops. Delta (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main page states that it was released earlier this year. Are those dates meant to be for next year, and it was just a typo, or are those dates made up? 97.118.245.155 (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was a typo, sorry about that. I meant to put next year. 216.114.214.12 (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet, thanks for fixing that. 97.118.245.155 (talk) 03:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refusal of Classification in Australia[edit]

I just added this part of the article, is it up to Wikipedia standards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.47.38 (talk) 09:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing Campaign?[edit]

Has anyone else seen or heard about people getting packages in the mail related to F.E.A.R. 2? Would this be important to add to the article as well? ShippoIsHip (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see why. Ads by mail are not abnormal, especially if you have some prior relationship (say, registering a game) with a publisher.  Xihr  21:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but not Instructional DVDs and Keys to a Storehouse with a Code locked Suitcase! (Watch the new video by Sxephil to see what I mean: http://youtube.com/watch?v=nNv0zY9fPhA ). Also, there's a viral website: http://www.armacham.com/ 83.26.56.156 (talk) 22:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. But still, attempts to do this are not abnormal either. There are several (failed) attempts in the past, though it's late and the names of the games (mostly online Web games) aren't coming to me now. They're just sending them to people their marketing information suggests will be interested, or, as I said, are known fans of the series through registrations. Indeed, talking on the Internet about exactly what's going on and why and revealing the details is precisely what the goal is.  Xihr  08:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've watched the video and it's really obviously itself an attempt at spreading a viral video. The people who are "filming" the video are clearly actors. There's nothing to see here, and at this point it falls fall short of being notable.  Xihr  23:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but this is exactly what they did for The Blair Witch project. They did abnormal marketing techniques to build up hype for the movie. It is mentioned in the Blair Witch article, when can't it be mentioned here? 'Scaper | ŴööđÇüŦŦëř (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's mentioned there then it's probably inappropriate and should be removed, unless it was 1. the first time that was done for a movie or 2. it is something that in and of itself became notable (say, because it made the obscure movie a huge success). (Either or both of these may be true in the case of The Blair Witch Project; I honestly wouldn't know offhand. Obviously Blair Witch was a huge success but it's hardly likely that it was because of their viral advertising campaign; it was word of mouth.) The first clearly can't be true for F.E.A.R. 2; it may turn out in the fullness of time that most people agree that this avenue of viral marketing is in and of itself notable for the game, but we certainly can't know that now, so giving it special emphasis in the article has undue influence and notability problems.  Xihr  05:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the guy in the shadow is an actor, but still I personally think this deserves a mention, since apparently it's not being sent to registered users, but more-or-less popular Internet persona's (Phil said that it's "kind of scary that they have his real address"). But that's really just my opinion. If anything, at least the website should be put in the External Links section. (much like ApertureScience.com is linked in Portal (video game)). 83.26.190.245 (talk) 10:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems quite clear to me that they're all actors. The entire story is completely staged. I mean, how do you think that material came together to be edited in that movie?  Xihr  03:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An actor? You're kidding me, right? The dude makes videos on YouTube for a living, almost all of them being completely unscripted and edited in his apartment, why the hell would he be making it all up? He even commented that he hates the fact that some marketing company was using him for publicity for their game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.150.118 (talk) 04:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demo[edit]

The demo for FEAR 2 has been released on PC, X-box 360, and Playstation 3. The demo is available on Steam (PC) and the Steam store indicates it will release the full game online though pre-ordering is not available at the moment. --204.112.191.178 (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


-- According to numerous forums and the company itself, Fear 2.0 does not support cooperative gameplay either on or offline —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.213.208.2 (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this correct?[edit]

Under the plot, in the last paragraph there is a sentence that reads:

Alma approaches Becket, and he is sent into another hallucination, where he fights off apparitions of a maddened Sergeant Keegan while trying to activate the amplifier to destroy Alma, interspersed with images of Alma crying out as if in orgasm.

The last word i believe to be incorrect. I believe it should read 'pain' instead of 'orgasm'– Elliott(Talk|Cont)  01:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if you've played the game you would know it IS an orgasm she is not in pain..............in a sense —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto360 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did play the game, i found the game very entertaining but short lived (it only took me 7 hours to beat it the first time on normal, and 5 hours the second time on hard) It could be that i was not paying attention. – Elliott(Talk|Cont)  16:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just played the game for the first time as well, and it's not clear to me that's the implication.  Xihr  08:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just replayed it and in retrospect it is pretty obvious that this is the intended implication.  Xihr  00:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem with the plot section: "Finally, after reactivating the last switch, Becket escapes the hallucination to find himself sealed inside the device." This is a misinterpretion. The wording should be changed, as the player does not find himself sealed in the device. If you look around, you will notice that Becket's physical body isn't there. - 91.153.27.175 (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you conclude this, since you can't see yourself during the hallucinations anyway. It is clear from Aristide's comments that her intent is to seal you into the chamber with Alma.  Xihr  00:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The plot section states she's pregnant with Becket's child... how do we know its his? I may have missed something (my copy of the game seems to be a bit odd... the whole Aristide - Stokes conversation at the end just wasn't there when I played through on normal). 81.104.179.66 (talk) 11:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you watch the ending on Youtube or replay the game. While Becket fights Keegan, flashes show him still tied to the chair in the amplifier, while Alma writhes and moans on top of him. With the killing of Keegan, Alma climaxes (and presumably Becket as well), and Becket is drawn out of the dream world. The door then opens to reveal a heavily pregnant Alma, who places Becket's hand upon her belly- a clear sign that the child is his. AlessaGillespie (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough... so the player is meant to assume that Alma somehow has sex with you while you're strapped to a chair and in a dream world...the practicalities of which seem far-fetched enough... and then her pregnancy is somehow accelerated by about 13 weeks so she looks pregnant... oh, and not forgetting that she's not actually biologically alive. Great stuff... its like with every new FEAR game, they just make things confusing to the point where suspension of disbelief isn't psychologically possible! 81.104.179.66 (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, are you forgetting this is a game with psychics who boil people alive, cloned psychic supersoldiers, ghosts, zombies, demonic monsters, and psychic hallucinations? A metaphorical sexual act between two psychics and a "pregancy" that is only visible on a psychic ghost that may very well be a symbolic hallucination (which is what 90% of Alma's hallucinations are int he first place) aren't that straining of disbelief. Peptuck (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it such a stretch of the imagination to think that Alma may have reanimated a physical body? It's been done in other video games, in movies, in books- FEAR would not be the first to tread the path of a dead psychic creating an animate, living body through her own willpower. AlessaGillespie (talk) 05:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Especially when you consider that Alma is actually capable of physically altering reality. There's at least once instance of this in Wade Elementary when she makes doors appear and disappear, and apparently teleports becket into another part of school for good measure. Peptuck (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reception[edit]

Surely there must be more critics involved with the game than stated on the actual page because last I checked there was a considerable amount of hype for the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto360 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reception section needs work. False information (no AA, no physics, no lighting), POV/poor source (forum given as a source) and weasel words ("much") regarding the game have been repeatedly inserted. I have deleted the changes once only see them reentered again. It also seems that the reception section has a negative spin to it even though the game has scored 82 on Metacritic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.221.80 (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, I've got the PC version of Fear 2 and there is Anti-Aliasing, all the way up to 16xQ. This is false information. Also, the games visuals are fine, the game is VERY well optimised and runs at a constant 60+ FPS on max settings on a system with a 9800 GTX, AMD 5200+, 2gb RAM set up. This game is far from poorly made and this negative attitude is rather abrupt, to praise the game and to then say it has problems (Which it clearly does not) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.127.99 (talk) 04:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, editor's opinions about whether the game is good or not are not satisfactory for Wikipedia. What matters is what verifiable, third-party, reliable sources have to say about the subject of the article.  Xihr  00:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the user forums I do not think it's a reliable source for the reception section because half the time people are criticising the game because they are not fans or do not have the decent hardware to run it. I request that such information be removed

Neither point of that new paragraph that keeps getting added and reverted are. The redline should be enough of a hint that something is amiss, especially combined with the editor's total lack of edit descriptions accompanied with his persistent adding of the comments.  Xihr  09:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External source has been added. As Gamer 2.0 is an online reviews page, it is as reliable as any other source. The popularity of the other sites quoted is not an indicator of reliability. The insertion clearly states that the graphics issues are limited to console versions, and PC versions are irrelevant. The sentence about forum discussions clearly states that the issues are being raised by members of forums, who are players. Their comments are just as reliable as official reviewers, many of whom openly admit to receiving payments for reviews. The included statement clearly states that this is the opinion of several forum members, and has references to these forums. There is nothing wrong with the inclusion.

Yes, there is. Forum users are not reliable sources, sorry. I'm not taking the word of a 13-year old kid over the guy PAID TO WRITE REVIEWS. By your argument, I can post whatever opinion I want to any forum, and then cite it here. Kingoomieiii (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you assume that the only reviews ARE written by 13 year olds. However, there are MANY people arguing this. The people paid to write the reviews, by very fact that they are paid, are biased. For objectivity, it is necessary to include the perspectives of people that are not paid too. You have no evidence that the many people arguing the graphics are 13. A controversy is a controversy, regardless of who is involved, and the info on wiki clearly states that it is a controversy. Are you saying that the opinion of people who have played the game, and have not received payment for their comments, are irrelevant? Might i point out that the sub-heading says "reception", not "reception of official reviewers"

It is not a reliable source, so whether you like it or not is irrelevant. It is inappropriate to use as a reviewer, citation or not. The redlink should have been a big hint. In the future, please follow consensus rather than blindingly entering an edit war.  Xihr  11:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does a red link mean it is not a reliable source? You have to be listed on wikipedia as a reliable source? ROTFLMAO!!! Gamer2.0 is JUST as reliable as any other source. ALL sources are written by humans, and therefore completely subjective. This page is just one of a number of game review sites. What makes it less reliable than, for example, gamespot? Just ask Derrida. Consensus? I thought this was supposedly about objectivity —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldraque77 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be a reliable source, not in your personal opinion reliable. Why not read the actual policies and guidelines for Wikipedia rather than starting edit wars and picking fights on various pages?  Xihr  06:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not provided adequate explanation on why this source is regarded as unreliable, while you accept the reliability of the other sources, other than these other sources have descriptions on wikipedia. The only reason they are listed on wikipedia is because someone has bothered to write them. Hence, they are mainstream. Mainstream does not equal reliable, and obscure does not mean unreliable. These are subjective interpretations. EVERY single review on this topic IS personal opinion. Why accept some subjective material and not others? Your perspective on this is essential extremely subjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldraque77 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citing forum posts is like citing something somebody wrote with marker on a newspaper. Yeah, it's on a notable, reliable source of information. But no, it's not relevant, even in the case of personal opinion.
We do not cite or reference forum posts as a source of information. Kingoomieiii (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, you reject information on a forum unless the material that is posted is by an official reviewer who A. is, despite everything, is still writing his/her opinion. B. Got paid for writing it.

So, essentially, you are saying that information is only reliable if the person writing this opion got paid for it.

In deconstructive terms, you are laying validity on information because money exchanged hands during its production. Thats how we judge reliable now? Derrida and Foucault would be rolling in their graves, gentlemen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldraque77 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about done with this. It's honestly over. An unreliable source was quoted, and was removed. Your argument that "opinions are opinions" is pointless. If we can cite member posts on open forums, I might as well add "But a bunch of threads on 4chan /v/ says it's awesome". The fact that the reviewer is PAID isn't the deciding factor. The fact that he IS A REVIEWER, an actual, accepted INDUSTRY CRITIC, is. You know, as opposed to a semi-anonymous post in the COMMENT BOX of said review. Kingoomieiii (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It's honestly over." This is a very subjective response from someone who is claiming to be acting in th name of objectivity. You say that the only wiki-worthy information here is that of the reviewer, and that the opinions of others is irrelevant. How elitist! You voted for Dick Cheney, didnt you Kingoomieiii? One of the great things about the freedom of information which is becoming more accessible today is that there are MANY people just as informed on the issue, who have not chosen to either seek formal education or a profession in the industry, whose knowledge on the topic is highly commendable. As commendable as those of a reviewer. You are saying that the opinions of these people are unreliable because they chose not to pursue a profession is gaming critique - a job in which there are so few employed people, given the amount of knowledge and information that is readily accessible on this topic. The contested statement here clearly says that controversy has arisen. It then even makes reference to these controversies. That is an OBJECTIVE statement. By your logic, only the words of a critic needs be noted. Thats SUBJECTIVE. Dont get too arrogant, Kingoomieiii. From here it looks like your fly is down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldraque77 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please learn to behave yourself.  Xihr  07:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is "behaving yourself" objective or subjective? Just because you do not happen to agree with me, does not mean that you are "right." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldraque77 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I didn't say people who weren't game critics were always unreliable. I said semi-anonymous forum posters were.
A reviewer is a reliable, notable source. A semi-anonymous poster on a forum IS NOT. I'm aware many scholarly people post on game forums. Their opinion would be more notable, however, if the people behind them were identifiable. We can't just say "FEAR 2 has sub-par graphics on the 360 -A Smart Person".
I don't want to see another baseless assuption about my personal life. Kingoomieiii (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To review, I don't really care about the Gamer 2.0 review being added. It's the forum link I'm talking about here. According to WP:RS (which, by the way, you are required to follow whether or not you agree with it), ALL INFORMATION must be attributed to it's original author, EVEN IN THE MATTER OF A STATEMENT OF OPINION. A discussion between people with hidden names immediately disqualifies itself. And please don't shoehorn in something about "Times are a-changin', usernames are the new birthnames". Wikipedia was created on the internet. Real, verifiable citations require real names.Kingoomieiii (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. You argue well. Touche. If we agree that Gamer 2.0 review stays, then I am content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldraque77 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just simply brilliant, I agree with the utter idiocy. They are simply PAID! So what, a janitor is a reliable source? A paid person who writes a few pages, while some brilliant forum member might write 20 pages, detailing everything from lighting to the feel of weaponry recoil. Perhaps Adolph Hitler should write a review, that'll be accepted, a five second play where he gets his nazis to shoot a copy of Call of Duty when he sees what it is about, and you'll accept that into reception? Moaners (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About Vandalism to the Page[edit]

An IP displaying as 82.39.69.73 did some VAST vandalism to the page by removing the entire "Development" and "Name Your Fear" sections and then adding a new section called "You Suck" (which has been already removed by another user) with zero text on March 3rd. I just copy-pasted those lost info back here from the history. Sorry I couldn't just simply "undo" it since there were several other times of editing done in between. I think from now on we might need to pay more attention to the vandalism and keep checking history out. As a sidenote, there always appear some new broken codes these days too, which caused the format fail to meet wikipedia's standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovelctr (talk • contribs) 10:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I aggree. Those of us who watch the Recent changes page typically notice when an Article is missing a vast about of data. – Elliott(Talk|Cont)  22:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reception (Part Two)[edit]

Alright, we need to take a hard look at the review sites being added to the Reception section. I didn't have a problem with Gamer 2.0, because at least I've HEARD of them, but two other sites have been added that I'm not familiar with. Do these sites fit the notability requirements to be used as sources? --Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 13:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cant be bothered starting this all up again, but i MUST say..Kingoomieiii, why, for a site to be creditable, do YOU have to have heard of it? I thought this whole exercise was an attempt for objectivity, but it seems that if you haven't heard of something, or don't agree with it, you try and ban it. Not just on this discussion, but on several others too. You aren't a wiki-god, you know, I don't think anyone important appointed you to this role, and you certainly aren't omniscient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.40.230 (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler: That's how notability works. My having heard of it or not is a starting point for me to determine whether or not I think it's a credible, notable source. I play a lot of games, and read review sites- seeing links to site I haven't heard of makes me think "hey, maybe this is a tiny, unknown site with X bias". And so I got to thinking, how many people HAVE heard of these sites? Am I just in the dark about a site everyone knows, or does this site NOT meet our requirements for notability (IE, only the guy who posted it has any idea what the hell it is)?
I didn't say I was the final vote. I asked a question, provided my reason for asking, and left it at that. You'll notice I didn't just start deleting links. And by the way, "or don't agree with it, you try and ban it" is how it works on Wikipedia, at least in the case of what you're talking about, which is "This has no place in this article, stop re-adding it." If you have a larger problem with how I edit in general, leave a note on my talk page, rather than a discussion page.
Also, while we're on the topic of insulting how I speak, what do you think of the content? Do you have a response to my question, or are you just trolling? --Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 13:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S., I'm tired of seeing the word "Objectivity" used incorrectly (or, at least, in ways that miss the point). Striving towards ridding an article of biased citations IS in favor of objectivity. Removing a link YOU LIKE isn't necessarily AGAINST it. And again, I posed a question. I didn't just start deleting stuff. So before you decide to tell me all the stuff I'm not (and thanks for that, by the way, I almost forgot I'm not Jimmy Wales, silly me), try reading beyond what I pushed to remove, and look at WHY. I didn't say "Remove the forum links" because LOLihateforums, but because they're against the goddamned rules. IIT: objectivity and opinions can't be within 100 yards of each other. Yes, that includes instances where one must form an opinion over whether something is objective. ---Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 18:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are missing my point. I am very well read on how to write an objective piece. My issue isn't the content this time, my issue with your phrase "at least I've HEARD of them, but two other sites have been added that I'm not familiar with." I am also VERY familiar with academic writing, as it has been my job for the past several years to teach people how to do it, and editing huge quantities of it. I have certainly not misused the word "objective" - and am also very aware that this word is itself a misnomer, as complete objectivity is impossible. Yet we strive for objectivity. My concern is that you have clearly stated that you have issues with a source if you have not heard of it. It is easy to deconstruct every review on anything, as these only equal the personal opinions of the reviewer, regardless of their qualifications and backgrounds. Certainly some sources are more reliable than others, but I do not think that public awareness of these sources guarantees reliability. By following this logic, you will eliminate any new sources of information simply because you have not heard of them. This is unfair to the reader, the writer, and objectivity itself. I didn't say anywhere you were removing links, and if this is a thinly veiled attack, I have not removed them myself. If you remember, I was advocating MORE information on the topic. My main concern is that, given your words above, that you are likely to discredit sources that you have not heard about, simply because you question their reliability based on whether they are well documented or not. I too play a lot of games, and often find that the reliability of the main-stream reviews to be highly questionable, and often find reviews much more to my ideas in less-visited places. Of course, this is a subjective approach, but given that objectivity appears to be finally quite subjective, it is important not to discount sources simply because they are not well documented. Please try and understand that giving space to less prominent sources is not against wikipedia standards, especially when the description of the source clearly explains the origin of the source itself. In doing this, we can clearly quote virtually ALL sources, because we are quoting, not stating the position as fact. Within reason of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.40.230 (talk) 05:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


p.s. "Goddamn"? Please try not to get so emotional about the issue. This certainly exposes the lack of objectivity here, which immediately undermines certain credibilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.40.230 (talk) 06:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about reliability. That's another animal entirely. I'm talking about NOTABILITY, which you seem to not find important at all (and, in fact, just advocated ignoring). Any source I haven't heard of warrants QUESTIONING, as far as I'm concerned. Once again, I was attempting to start a discussion over whether several sources added to the page met wikipedia's NOTABILITY requirements, not the more lofty goal of "having objective writers". I didn't just say "I haven't heard of these guys, remove them", my question was, "If I, as an individual, haven't heard of them, are they NOTABLE enough to be here, or is printing their opinion giving them undue weight?
My point is, paying for webspace and playing with CSS shouldn't guarantee you space on a wikipedia page for any given opinion you plunk down on your site. If you get 50 hits a week, you shouldn't be referenced here.
"it is important not to discount sources simply because they are not well documented."
Well-documented is the name of the game here, isn't it? How does this work, exactly? --Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 12:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Also, please log in (Eldraque) and sign your posts. --Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk


Ummmm.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_in_brief I see no mention of the word "Notable" what-so-ever. Reliable is mentioned several times though.....


"Articles may state, neutrally and factually, which people hold what opinions, but must not judge." Maybe you should go read the rules of wikipedia. While you are at it... I recommend http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.40.230 (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page for this game is not the place for a philosophical discussion on what you personally believe might or might not qualify as interesting sources of information. WP:V policy requires citations and WP:RS guidelines, both reached by consensus, indicate what the proper course of action is in this area. If you wish to dispute those policies and guidelines, you are more than welcome to do so, but you should do it on the talk pages of those articles. Disputing those policies and guidelines on a random article's talk page is not particularly constructive to the project, and is certainly not going to change the well-established consensus as indicated on those pages.  Xihr  22:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mommy[edit]

It's pretty obvious that a child can be heard saying "Mommy" at the end of the game, but here's a slightly louder version of it found on YouTube, Since I don't have the PC version, I can't pull the exact sound file itself. If it helps, turn the volume all the way up just after Alma places Becket's hand on her stomach. The voice occurs just as the music stops. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaZ6tM5L8vQ AlessaGillespie (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link to sound file pulled from PC version of FEAR 2 in which a child's voice can clearly be heard saying 'Mommy'. http://www.filefactory.com/file/ag34g85/n/alma_mommy_wav AlessaGillespie (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need a new section for Controversy.[edit]

Quick edit: it was 4 months since the April 1st announcement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serverfiles (talk • contribs) 01:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recently it was discovered that Monolith will not be releasing server files, anti-cheat or SDK for PC. This was officially released in April. Yet it was recently discovered a Article on a Australian website dated January 1st stated this.Monolith had not released any information on this article.Forum members who did divulge this information were quickly edited & banned.

Monolith also has not released full patch notes when this game was updated.Patch 1.1 (the day 1 patch) has not disclosed it notes. Patch 1.2 contains changes not mention in patch notes also. It would be wise to warn readers of Wikipedia, about these.Many people make judgments of products of Wikipedia. Another Controversy is a moderator for Monolith has stated they would make announcements on this before (I'll be posting sources if needed).

Here is the original announcement that was buried by Monolith: http://www.ausgamers.com/features/read/2699165

This is when it was officially announced by Monolith 3 months after its original article. http://www.projectorigincommunity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=147797#post147797

If you view this Marauders past post in that forum. He stated he does not know the current status. Even though 2 months prior to this annocement it was clearly started in the article above.

This link below shows that the Monolith representative was going to make a announcement.

http://www.projectorigincommunity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=145497#post145497

Look at his post. Clearly 3 months have gone by since Monolith has done this article. Its obviously lying on the subject matter.

I submit that we need a section of Controversy of Monolith's business tactics because its clearly out right lying.Using false information of "not knowing" for a full 3 months since January 1st. I'd do the article myself but I'm not good with Wiki. I joined under the assumed name because that is the only reason I joined to bring it up.

The fact is they knew on January first before the demo was even released (see demo release date here:http://www.projectorigincommunity.com/news?page=2 ). So on January 22th they released the demo and were still not releasing anything about Multiplayer development server file wise. Stating in Forums by official representatives that the Current status is unknown. This after 21 days after the article was released. Instead of linking consumers with the answers. They blatantly played the dumb card and said they do not have a current status on the matter.

By this time F.E.A.R. 2 Project Origin had gone gold.

I believe consumers buying this game need to be advise of these tactics. the fact that the Monolith Community consultant Marauder hasn't posted the announcement of server files or link the original January 1st article before his April 1st post. He still hasn't posted a announcement in the Announcement thread or the official community sites.

Many consumers must know the current status of these tactics so they can make a wise decision when venturing into a purchase of this game.

Wikipedia is a common source sited for multiple areas of peoples life, from systems, to even news, to articles on history. People who come to see F.E.A.R. 2 Project Origin for information on the product should be advised on these subjects. Serverfiles (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good grief. Wikipedia is not a 'whine, cry, and moan cause you didn't get what you want' forum. So you didn't get what you want? Get over it! Wikipedia is not for this childish garbage. AlessaGillespie (talk) 07:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this were the remotest bit interesting, it's still original research and is not appropriate unless reliable, third-party sources cover it.  Xihr  22:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alesia Glidewell[edit]

On her official page (not a fan page), she's listed as the voice of Alma in F.E.A.R. 2. The official credits for F.E.A.R. 2 list an Alicia Glidwell. Does this pass notability requirements for listing? http://www.alesiaglidewell.com/bio.php AlessaGillespie (talk) 05:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. Are you just addressing the spelling, rather than the factual content? Certainly Ms. Glidwell knows how to spell her name better than anyone else ... :-)  Xihr  22:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm addressing both. I wanted to make sure it passed notability requirements for posting since the name in the credits was slightly different.AlessaGillespie (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel[edit]

Multiple gaming sites has recently reported on a sequel to F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin apparently revealed by an unknown Spanish gaming magazine under the name of F.3.A.R., no this is not a typo, I have added this information with citations to the main article. KSweeley (talk) 10:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a news site. Early speculation is inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia until it becomes definite. It's not even clear that the main attention to the subject would be in this article, rather than the series itself.  Xihr  10:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

System requirements[edit]

I think the system requirements on this page is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.74.98 (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. It was clearly vandalism.--201.211.99.96 (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:F.E.A.R._2:_Project_Origin&oldid=1209951129"